Tools for Addressing Cumulative Impacts on Human Health and the Environment

This is a postprint (author's final draft) version of an article published in the journal Environmental Justice in 2014. The final version of this article may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/env-2014.0016 (login may be required). The version made available in OpenBU was supplied by the author."Cumulative impacts" refers to the total harm to human health and the environment resulting from combinations of stressors over time. Cumulative impacts are creating three kinds of effects: degraded ecosystems (such as oceans and boreal forests), human diseases, and disproportionately burdened communities, which are the hallmark of environmental injustice. At the heart of the problem lie the modern risk-based regulatory systems of the U.S. and Europe, which are not designed to understand or manage cumulative impacts, and which have permitted an accumulation of harmful activities and effects. Alternative, precautionary regulatory approaches have been recommended but not yet widely implemented. Now some communities, planners and regulators are finding ways to supplement traditional risk-based approaches, using innovative new tools for assessment and decision-making in the face of cumulative impacts, including indexes, mapping, and screening. These efforts both inform policy and serve as exemplary models. Together they point the way toward new, precautionary decision structures aimed at reducing cumulative impacts.Science & Environmental Health Network; National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) STAR Program, EPA grant number RD83458201

A New Spin on Research Translation: The Boston Consensus Conference on Human Biomonitoring

BACKGROUND. Translating research to make it more understandable and effective (research translation) has been declared a priority in environmental health but does not always include communication to the public or residents of communities affected by environmental hazards. Their unique perspectives are also commonly missing from discussions about science and technology policy. The consensus conference process, developed in Denmark, offers a way to address this gap. OBJECTIVES. The Boston Consensus Conference on Human Biomonitoring, held in Boston, Massachusetts, in the fall of 2006, was designed to educate and elicit input from 15 Boston-area residents on the scientifically complex topic of human biomonitoring for environmental chemicals. This lay panel considered the many ethical, legal, and scientific issues surrounding biomonitoring and prepared a report expressing their views. DISCUSSION. The lay panel's findings provide a distinct and important voice on the expanding use of biomonitoring. In some cases, such as a call for opt-in reporting of biomonitoring results to study participants, they mirror recommendations raised elsewhere. Other conclusions have not been heard previously, including the recommendation that an individual's results should be statutorily exempted from the medical record unless permission is granted, and the opportunity to use biomonitoring data to stimulate green chemistry. CONCLUSION. The consensus conference model addresses both aspects of a broader conception of research translation: engaging the public in scientific questions, and bringing their unique perspectives to bear on public health research, practice, and policy. In this specific application, a lay panel's recommendations on biomonitoring surveillance, communication, and ethics have practical implications for the conduct of biomonitoring studies and surveillance programs.National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R25 ES12084, P42ES007381

Qualitative Environmental Health Research: An Analysis of the Literature, 1991-2008

BACKGROUND. Recent articles have advocated for the use of qualitative methods in environmental health research. Qualitative research uses nonnumeric data to understand people's opinions, motives, understanding, and beliefs about events or phenomena. OBJECTIVE. In this analysis of the literature, I report the use of qualitative methods and data in the study of the relationship between environmental exposures and human health. DATA SOURCES. A primary search on ISI Web of Knowledge/Web of Science for peer-reviewed journal articles dated from 1991 through 2008 included the following three terms: qualitative, environ*, and health. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described. DATA EXTRACTION. Searches resulted in 3,155 records. Data were extracted and findings of articles analyzed to determine where and by whom qualitative environmental health research is conducted and published, the types of methods and analyses used in qualitative studies of environmental health, and the types of information qualitative data contribute to environmental health. DATA SYNTHESIS. Ninety-one articles met inclusion criteria. These articles were published in 58 different journals, with a maximum of eight for a single journal. The results highlight a diversity of disciplines and techniques among researchers who used qualitative methods to study environmental health, with most studies relying on one-on-one interviews. Details of the analyses were absent from a large number of studies. Nearly all of the studies identified increased scientific understanding of lay perceptions of environmental health exposures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Qualitative data are published in traditionally quantitative environmental health studies to a limited extent. However, this analysis demonstrates the potential of qualitative data to improve understanding of complex exposure pathways, including the influence of social factors on environmental health, and health outcomes.National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R25 ES012084, P42ES007381

Social disparities in exposures to bisphenol A and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals: a cross-sectional study within NHANES 2003-2006

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bisphenol A (BPA) and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs) are suspected endocrine disrupting compounds known to be ubiquitous in people's bodies. Population disparities in exposure to these chemicals have not been fully characterized.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Using multivariable linear regression we examined the association between urinary concentrations of BPA, serum concentrations of four PFCs, and multiple measures of socioeconomic position (SEP): family income, education, occupation, and food security. We also examined associations with race/ethnicity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All four PFCs were positively associated with family income, whereas BPA was inversely associated with family income. BPA concentrations were higher in people who reported very low food security and received emergency food assistance than in those who did not. This association was particularly strong in children: 6-11 year-olds whose families received emergency food had BPA levels 54% higher (95% CI, 13 to 112%) than children of families who did not. For BPA and PFCs we saw smaller and less consistent associations with education and occupation. Mexican Americans had the lowest concentrations of any racial/ethnic group of both types of chemicals; for PFCs, Mexican Americans not born in the U.S. had much lower levels than those born in the U.S.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>People with lower incomes had higher body burdens of BPA; the reverse was true for PFCs. Family income with adjustment for family size was the strongest predictor of chemical concentrations among the different measures of SEP we studied. Income, education, occupation, and food security appear to capture different aspects of SEP that may be related to exposure to BPA and PFCs and are not necessarily interchangeable as measures of SEP in environmental epidemiology studies. Differences by race/ethnicity were independent of SEP.</p

Tangible evidence, trust and power: Public perceptions of community environmental health studies

Communities with environmental health concerns in the USA frequently request studies from their local or state departments of public health. This paper presents findings from three focus groups conducted in communities north of Boston that have been the subject of two different environmental health studies. The focus groups were designed to elicit residents' perceptions of environmental health, and of the particular studies conducted in their communities. In all focus groups, participants had difficulty accepting the findings of health studies that contradicted their own experiences of environmental exposures and illness. Our results suggest that lay knowledge, informed in varying degrees by the experience of what we term "tangible evidence," creates a lens through which communities interpret a health study's findings. The differences in reliance on tangible evidence were related to participants' sense of trust in public officials, and the institutions responsible for conducting health studies. Participants from the wealthier, predominantly white communities discussed trust in study design and methodologies used. In contrast, participants from the lower-income, higher-minority communities assessed health studies with reference to their trust (or lack thereof) in study sponsors and public health institutions. Participants' experience of tangible evidence, trust or distrust in health agencies and research institutions, and a sense of relative community power, influence how they assess the findings of environmental health studies and may have implications for pubic health.USA Environmental health Environmental justice Focus groups Lay knowledge Power Trust